Update: Why Pursue Wind Energy Now


There is no question that technologies such as wind turbines are less efficient than continuing to use fossil fuel. So why are we investing so much in renewable in terms of tax breaks and legislation? This video presents a non political outline of the situation that  planet finds itself in. It does not offer any solutions. This was first posted on Thumbwind in 2012. Three years later it resonates even more.

Some may consider it propaganda while others consider it prophetic. It’s required viewing in several classes in colleges throughout Michigan.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Update: Why Pursue Wind Energy Now”

  1. In the past and hopefully in the future “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Let’s hope.

    The presentation was great. Thanks.

    Like

    1. I had to look up what Seppuku is. The producer of the film was purposely attempting to re-create and spoof the filmstrip and cartoon films that I remember in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Of course all those were propaganda too.

      Like

      1. Wind energy mtsloy replaces energy from coal-fired power plants. In reality wind will never fully supplant nonrenewable energy sources because it is not reliable (non-windy days). There must always be back-up sources that can be used on demand. The cleanest solution would be nuclear and natural gas nonrenewables along with geothermal, wind, and solar renewables.

        Like

    2. risks it costs over $1 million USD to put up ONE liidmnwl so.. when you see 500 or 600 or 800 of them in a big field, you can calculate the cost One of them produces enough electricity to power, what . 5 houses? of all of the liidmnwls we have ALLLL OVER the us . thousands .. it only accounts for 1% of our energy. also, they are cool, but it sucks having millions of 400 foot tall liidmnwls dotting the what would otherwise be a beautiful landscape. also, there are only certain places in the world, certain types of landscapes that are truly conducive of having liidmnwls. and of those places, most of them have them already. and even there, they don’t ALL ALWAYS spin.. when they aren’t spinning, they aren’t producing.benefits . that’s 1% less coal that we have to burn. but realistically, there doesn’t HAVE to be ANY coal burned at this point. it could all be nuclear. meltdowns are very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. the only reason they’ve ever had one was because the staff there didn’t keep up with the equipment because they didn’t feel they had to.. and of course there was a meltdown. The problem is the waste it produces. germany subsidizes solar power they allow the sale of solar energy by the public. because of that, there are TONS AND TONS AND TONS of solar panels all over the place, and about 46% of their energy COMES from solar whereas 2% of the US’s power comes from solar. problem is, if it’s dark, it’s not producing there are ways to convertt water into electricity, but governments won’t allow it. sea water could be filtered, have electrolites added, hydrolicized to an “unstable” liquid, and burned by machines that generate electricity there’s an over abundance of sea water, and hell the level is getting higher each year is it not? the only biproduct of such a thing would be atomized water not co2.

      Like

  2. The wind doesn’t start blowing just becsuae you turned on a switch so you’re gambling that wind energy would be available when you need it. There’s a capital investment in both land and in the generator itself, there’s maintenance, there’s transmission costs, basically it amounts to a high startup cost, a constant operational cost but results in a variable uncontrollable generation of energy. The risk is that you won’t have the power when you can sell the power and you may have too much power when you can’t sell the power.

    Like

  3. World class stupid. These idiots don’t even know what economic growth IS. A doubling of GNP is not a doubling of STUFF. It is a doubling of VALUE. In particular, we are always learning to do more with less. Economic growth is not the road into a dead end, as this idiot video depicts, but is the reason there will not be a dead end, unless these anti-capitalist anti-growth leftists get their way.

    Like

    1. Please consider a serious review of this thought. Its classical underpinnings developed early in the last century by the Chicago School of economics are now under question. Check out “The End of Growth” by Richard Heinberg

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s